Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 1:02:46 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 4:37:17 PM UTC+2, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jun 2022 11:53:34 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 7:52:06 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 16:07:54 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 2:11:48 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 14:04:57 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 11:04:42 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
snip
Okay, and I\'m in a warm house, computer, Peets coffee (Big Bang)
but my electricity is hydroelectric, and I\'m not a shortsighted jackass.
The next decades do not have to replicate previous ones. Design
them for improvement, and ditch the insistence on familiarity: there\'s
THREE terms in a PID control, and it works because it acknowledges a
plausible future. You need to dial down the integral term, or it\'ll kill the regulation.
Even assuming that burning oil and gas is the major contributor to atmospheric CO2,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suess_effect
That\'s a fact, not an assumption.
I was not aware of that. Makes sense. It seems pretty convincing too... unless someone wished to fend it off by saying the equivalent of, \"It\'s that way because that\'s the way God made it!\" Not that anyone here is going to invoke God, but many seem to believe in the concept that AGW can\'t be true, \"because\".
and further assuming that the C02 is causing warming,
That\'s a fact too, if you take the trouble to work out which bits of the atmosphere are radiating which infrared photons out to outer space.
and then assuming that warming is bad,
Warming isn\'t the whole of it. Climate climate change is floods and fires, and new parasites and diseases.
the benefits from oil and gas
As sources of energy. They can now be replaced, more cheaply, by solar cells and windmills and a lot of short term battery back-up and large scale grids.
This is going on right now in Australia because the electricity generating utilities want to save money.
far outweigh these hypothetical dangers.
Only your judgement is as poor as John Larkin\'s. The dangers are real and are showing up in real life.
Especially for the billions of truly poor people in the world.
If renewable energy is a cheaper source of power than burning fossil carbon, the truly poor people will go for it - as they are doing anyway. Solar cells come in small packages so you can buy enough for yourself to make a difference to your life without having to wait for a Lenin-figure to electrify the whole country.
Read about life before the 17th century. It was horrible. Even the
elites and royalty had pretty awful lives, and regular people lived on
the edge of death. Half their kids died young. So many women died in
childbirth that their average lifespan was 25. The average man made it
to 32.
The Agricultural Revolution didn\'t depend on fossil carbon. Better sanitation - clean water - has done more for the average life-span than any amount of fossil carbon.
Big contributor to survival: ammonia-based fertilizers.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/03/05/sri-lanka-organic-farming-crisis/
If you put somebody as pig-ignorant as John Larkin in charge of agriculture you can expect this kind of disaster. The Agricultural Revolution exploited nitrogen-fixing bacteria to get the necessary nitrates into the soil. Ammonia synthesis lets you produce a lot of fertiliser in a big factory and make a lot of money in the process, but it isn\'t the only way of getting nitrogen-based fertilisers, and it isn\'t the cheapest route either.
Not just ignorant, but willfully so. He never reads enough about the theories to actually understand them, but he is happy to read every drop of the denialist
On 06/05/2022 08:37 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jun 2022 11:53:34 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:
On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 7:52:06 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 16:07:54 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 2:11:48 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 14:04:57 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 11:04:42 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
Oil and gas are great. Once you drill a well, the stuff just comes up
and flows into a pipeline. No dust, no miners, no crushers, no
chemicals, ...
Huh? One hundred percent chemical product, guy! Byproducts
galore, so much pollution the weather is taking notice!
Go live in a tent. Forage for food. Burn rushes for light. Wear fur
when it\'s cold. Cook over dung. Walk everywhere. Enjoy.
JL is so shortsighted, he only sees the input end of \'a pipeline\',
and ignores the other one. As long as he\'s on this planet, the
other end IS his concern, just one he\'s neglected for decades.
I\'m in a warm house, in front of a computer drinking hot Peets coffee.
All that thanks to fossil fuel. I don\'t ignore this stuff; I
appreciate it all the time, as I have for decades.
Okay, and I\'m in a warm house, computer, Peets coffee (Big Bang)
but my electricity is hydroelectric, and I\'m not a shortsighted jackass.
The next decades do not have to replicate previous ones. Design
them for improvement, and ditch the insistence on familiarity: there\'s
THREE terms in a PID control, and it works because it acknowledges a
plausible future. You need to dial down the integral term, or it\'ll kill the regulation.
Even assuming that burning oil and gas is the major contributer to
atmospheric CO2, and further assuming that the C02 is causing warming,
and then assuming that warming is bad, the benefits from oil and gas
far outweigh these hypothetical dangers. Especially for the billions
of truly poor people in the world.
Read about life before the 17th century. It was horrible. Even the
elites and royalty had pretty awful lives, and regular people lived on
the edge of death. Half their kids died young. So many women died in
childbirth that their average lifespan was 25. The average man made it
to 32.
Big contributor to survival: ammonia-based fertilizers.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/03/05/sri-lanka-organic-farming-crisis/
That cuts both ways. In the \'60s and \'70s prior to the \'Green
Revolution\' India was facing famine. The new crops, dependent on
chemical fertilizers and irrigation, saved the day. What has happened to
India\'s population since that era? What will be the outcome if the
farmers can\'t afford the chemical fertilizers?
If you\'re talking about white tail deer, for example, there is little
argument that the deer will reproduce until they exceed the carrying
capacity of the habitat. Then the population will be reduced one way or
another. With wise game management you strive to keep the herd at
maximum sustainable yield, about half of the maximum BCC.
Are humans exempt? Cornucopians think so and there will always be
another technological advance. What happens when they run out of rabbits
to pull out of the hat?
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 7:37:17 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jun 2022 11:53:34 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
The next decades do not have to replicate previous ones. Design
them for improvement, and ditch the insistence on familiarity: there\'s
THREE terms in a PID control, and it works because it acknowledges a
plausible future. You need to dial down the integral term, or it\'ll kill the regulation.
Even assuming that burning oil and gas is the major contributer to
NOT an assumption, we have the numbers and isotopic composition confirmation
atmospheric CO2, and further assuming that the C02 is causing warming,
NOT an assumption, we have a good idea how radiant heat transfer dominates
the Earth\'s temperature and we know the atmosphere and sunlight effect of
a variety of gasses.
[more blather deleted; I\'m not gonna dissect the whole pile of lies and distortions]
Read about life before the 17th century. It was horrible.
Not relevant, because we aren\'t heading into a future that
resembles the 16th century. Also, there isn\'t a monster in your closet.
Greta Thunberg gets it; why doesn\'t John Larkin?
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 1:48:19 PM UTC-7, rbowman wrote:
On 06/05/2022 05:21 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 02:13:06 +0100, rbowman <bow...@montana.com> wrote:
On 06/04/2022 03:40 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
rbowman wrote:
On 06/04/2022 01:00 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jun 2022 05:06:15 +0100, rbowman <bow...@montana.com
wrote:
On 06/03/2022 12:04 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 22:06:25 -0600, rbowman <bow...@montana.com
wrote:
On 06/02/2022 02:18 PM, ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 21:55:55 UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
You said \"minors\" meaning young people, nothing about mining.
OCD fuckwit. I actually spelt it like that for a laugh, making
fun
of our fucked up language. Anyway minors are more fun than
miners.
Unusual sense of humour.
How are we supposed to know what you mean?
It could mean either in the context of the conversation.
And most Lithium is \"mined\" using brine extraction, it does not
involve digging holes.
https://champ4mt.com/the-dangers-of-lithium-mining-and-how-to-do-something-about-it.html
kw
Then there are the minor miners:
https://allthatsinteresting.com/child-miners#27
Oil and gas are great. Once you drill a well, the stuff just
comes up
and flows into a pipeline. No dust, no miners, no crushers, no
chemicals, no trucks, no tailings. Nobody even needs to be there.
Fracking needs a little more attention, but the action is still deep
underground.
I always get a kick out of those grasshoppers out in the middle of
nowhere doing there thing. I get even a bigger kick out of the
ones you
stumble over in the middle of Anaheim. iirc there were a couple off
State College north of Ball.
I take it you mean a https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcykqOwDvyc
and not
a https://youtu.be/NfJQx8ZEr54?t=50 or a https://youtu.be/yMFqyabMJTo
Yup. The other part of it is the flares. You\'d be driving through
Wyoming at night in the middle of nowhere and there would be flares
miles off the road. Rather eerie.
I don\'t know if the still burn the gas off oil wells, gorbal warming
and all, you know.
A lot of stranded gas is now liquefied using thermoacoustic fridges
powered by a much smaller amount of gas. IIRC the yield is something
like 70%, which is a big win.
After a little reading the volume dropped off for a while but has picked
up again.
https://www.naturalgasintel.com/permian-methane-flaring-venting-said-still-stubbornly-high/
That article claims
EDF said other satellite data indicates Permian operators sent 280 Bcf
of gas worth about $420 million up their flare stacks in 2019, which was
âmore than enough to supply every home in Texas.â
Gas price was still cheap in 2019, around $3. It\'s $8 today and unlikely to fall back again. So, less of the stuff should be burning up.
On 06/05/2022 05:21 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 02:13:06 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On 06/04/2022 03:40 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
rbowman wrote:
On 06/04/2022 01:00 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jun 2022 05:06:15 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com
wrote:
On 06/03/2022 12:04 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 22:06:25 -0600, rbowman <bowman@montana.com
wrote:
On 06/02/2022 02:18 PM, ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 21:55:55 UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
You said \"minors\" meaning young people, nothing about mining.
OCD fuckwit. I actually spelt it like that for a laugh, making
fun
of our fucked up language. Anyway minors are more fun than
miners.
Unusual sense of humour.
How are we supposed to know what you mean?
It could mean either in the context of the conversation.
And most Lithium is \"mined\" using brine extraction, it does not
involve digging holes.
https://champ4mt.com/the-dangers-of-lithium-mining-and-how-to-do-something-about-it.html
kw
Then there are the minor miners:
https://allthatsinteresting.com/child-miners#27
Oil and gas are great. Once you drill a well, the stuff just
comes up
and flows into a pipeline. No dust, no miners, no crushers, no
chemicals, no trucks, no tailings. Nobody even needs to be there.
Fracking needs a little more attention, but the action is still deep
underground.
I always get a kick out of those grasshoppers out in the middle of
nowhere doing there thing. I get even a bigger kick out of the
ones you
stumble over in the middle of Anaheim. iirc there were a couple off
State College north of Ball.
I take it you mean a https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcykqOwDvyc
and not
a https://youtu.be/NfJQx8ZEr54?t=50 or a https://youtu.be/yMFqyabMJTo
Yup. The other part of it is the flares. You\'d be driving through
Wyoming at night in the middle of nowhere and there would be flares
miles off the road. Rather eerie.
I don\'t know if the still burn the gas off oil wells, gorbal warming
and all, you know.
A lot of stranded gas is now liquefied using thermoacoustic fridges
powered by a much smaller amount of gas. IIRC the yield is something
like 70%, which is a big win.
After a little reading the volume dropped off for a while but has picked
up again.
https://www.naturalgasintel.com/permian-methane-flaring-venting-said-still-stubbornly-high/
That article claims
EDF said other satellite data indicates Permian operators sent 280 Bcf
of gas worth about $420 million up their flare stacks in 2019, which was
âmore than enough to supply every home in Texas.â
It wouldn\'t have helped the infrastructure problems but it\'s ironic that
during the Big Freeze last year the varmints in the Permian were warm
and cozy.
Who, what, or where, is the Permian?
The Permian basin in West Texas and eastern New Mexico.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=30952
As someone pointed out flaring the gas is seen as the lesser of two
evils, since the gas is mostly methane which is seen as a bigger problem
than CO2. There are plenty of leaks so you get the best of both worlds,
methane and CO2.
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 10:26:08 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
Gas price was still cheap in 2019, around $3. It\'s $8 today and unlikely to fall back again. So, less of the stuff should be burning up.
Of course the price of gas won\'t stay at $8 a gallon. If nothing else, over the next few years, the amount consumed will drop 10% because of BEVs and that will continue to make permanent decreases in the price of oil and gasoline.
On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 10:07:23 -0700 (PDT), Ed Lee
edward.ming.lee@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 11:09:47 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 7:39:50 AM UTC+2, Ricky wrote:
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 10:26:08 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
Gas price was still cheap in 2019, around $3. It\'s $8 today and unlikely to fall back again. So, less of the stuff should be burning up.
Of course the price of gas won\'t stay at $8 a gallon. If nothing else, over the next few years, the amount consumed will drop 10% because of BEVs and that will continue to make permanent decreases in the price of oil and gasoline.
There is an enviromental argument for taxing it more heavily, so less of it gets burnt. As more renewable energy becomes availalble, taxing fossil carbon will put less of crimp on the economy as a whole, so it probably will happen, but the fossil carbon extraction industry won\'t like it.
Not sure if it really make sense to ship LNG to Europe. We (US) got more than enough and Europe need more of it. For $8 NG, it costs around $3 to liquidify, $6 to ship and $2 to gasify. It makes zero economical sense, but only political sense.
Unless people are freezing. Winter is coming.
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 11:09:47 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 7:39:50 AM UTC+2, Ricky wrote:
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 10:26:08 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
Gas price was still cheap in 2019, around $3. It\'s $8 today and unlikely to fall back again. So, less of the stuff should be burning up.
Of course the price of gas won\'t stay at $8 a gallon. If nothing else, over the next few years, the amount consumed will drop 10% because of BEVs and that will continue to make permanent decreases in the price of oil and gasoline.
There is an enviromental argument for taxing it more heavily, so less of it gets burnt. As more renewable energy becomes availalble, taxing fossil carbon will put less of crimp on the economy as a whole, so it probably will happen, but the fossil carbon extraction industry won\'t like it.
Not sure if it really make sense to ship LNG to Europe. We (US) got more than enough and Europe need more of it. For $8 NG, it costs around $3 to liquidify, $6 to ship and $2 to gasify. It makes zero economical sense, but only political sense.
On 06/06/2022 11:07 AM, Ed Lee wrote:
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 11:09:47 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 7:39:50 AM UTC+2, Ricky wrote:
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 10:26:08 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
Gas price was still cheap in 2019, around $3. It\'s $8 today and unlikely to fall back again. So, less of the stuff should be burning up.
Of course the price of gas won\'t stay at $8 a gallon. If nothing else, over the next few years, the amount consumed will drop 10% because of BEVs and that will continue to make permanent decreases in the price of oil and gasoline.
There is an enviromental argument for taxing it more heavily, so less of it gets burnt. As more renewable energy becomes availalble, taxing fossil carbon will put less of crimp on the economy as a whole, so it probably will happen, but the fossil carbon extraction industry won\'t like it.
Not sure if it really make sense to ship LNG to Europe. We (US) got more than enough and Europe need more of it. For $8 NG, it costs around $3 to liquidify, $6 to ship and $2 to gasify. It makes zero economical sense, but only political sense.
It\'s not an overnight solution either. The last I knew Germany was light
on LNG terminals that could easily be wired into the existing pipelines
for distribution. I see it as the US trying to sweet talk them into
something that really isn\'t to their advantage. The Ukraine fiasco is a
good excuse for dropping the pipeline that would be the obvious answer.
On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 19:13:16 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 7:37:17 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
Read about life before the 17th century. It was horrible.
Not relevant, because we aren\'t heading into a future that
resembles the 16th century. Also, there isn\'t a monster in your closet.
Greta Thunberg gets it; why doesn\'t John Larkin?
Because he isn\'t a worry-wart like you?
On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 12:02:50 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 19:13:16 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 7:37:17 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
Read about life before the 17th century. It was horrible.
Not relevant, because we aren\'t heading into a future that
resembles the 16th century. Also, there isn\'t a monster in your closet.
Greta Thunberg gets it; why doesn\'t John Larkin?
Because he isn\'t a worry-wart like you?
Huh? You\'re telling me it\'s rational to think the future will be
like pre-seventeenth-century as described in (mainly European) books?
John Larkin IS certainly a worry-wart.
On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 18:55:03 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 1:02:46 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 4:37:17 PM UTC+2, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jun 2022 11:53:34 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 7:52:06 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 16:07:54 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 2:11:48 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 14:04:57 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 11:04:42 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
snip
Okay, and I\'m in a warm house, computer, Peets coffee (Big Bang)
but my electricity is hydroelectric, and I\'m not a shortsighted jackass.
The next decades do not have to replicate previous ones. Design
them for improvement, and ditch the insistence on familiarity: there\'s
THREE terms in a PID control, and it works because it acknowledges a
plausible future. You need to dial down the integral term, or it\'ll kill the regulation.
Even assuming that burning oil and gas is the major contributor to atmospheric CO2,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suess_effect
That\'s a fact, not an assumption.
I was not aware of that. Makes sense. It seems pretty convincing too... unless someone wished to fend it off by saying the equivalent of, \"It\'s that way because that\'s the way God made it!\" Not that anyone here is going to invoke God, but many seem to believe in the concept that AGW can\'t be true, \"because\".
Atmospheric CO2 is good for crops.
and further assuming that the C02 is causing warming,
That\'s a fact too, if you take the trouble to work out which bits of the atmosphere are radiating which infrared photons out to outer space.
and then assuming that warming is bad,
Warming isn\'t the whole of it. Climate climate change is floods and fires, and new parasites and diseases.
the benefits from oil and gas
As sources of energy. They can now be replaced, more cheaply, by solar cells and windmills and a lot of short term battery back-up and large scale grids.
This is going on right now in Australia because the electricity generating utilities want to save money.
far outweigh these hypothetical dangers.
Only your judgement is as poor as John Larkin\'s. The dangers are real and are showing up in real life.
Especially for the billions of truly poor people in the world.
If renewable energy is a cheaper source of power than burning fossil carbon, the truly poor people will go for it - as they are doing anyway. Solar cells come in small packages so you can buy enough for yourself to make a difference to your life without having to wait for a Lenin-figure to electrify the whole country.
Read about life before the 17th century. It was horrible. Even the
elites and royalty had pretty awful lives, and regular people lived on
the edge of death. Half their kids died young. So many women died in
childbirth that their average lifespan was 25. The average man made it
to 32.
The Agricultural Revolution didn\'t depend on fossil carbon. Better sanitation - clean water - has done more for the average life-span than any amount of fossil carbon.
Big contributor to survival: ammonia-based fertilizers.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/03/05/sri-lanka-organic-farming-crisis/
If you put somebody as pig-ignorant as John Larkin in charge of agriculture you can expect this kind of disaster. The Agricultural Revolution exploited nitrogen-fixing bacteria to get the necessary nitrates into the soil. Ammonia synthesis lets you produce a lot of fertiliser in a big factory and make a lot of money in the process, but it isn\'t the only way of getting nitrogen-based fertilisers, and it isn\'t the cheapest route either.
Not just ignorant, but willfully so. He never reads enough about the theories to actually understand them, but he is happy to read every drop of the denialist
Using that word loses the argument instantly.
On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 12:02:50 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 19:13:16 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 7:37:17 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
Read about life before the 17th century. It was horrible.
Not relevant, because we aren\'t heading into a future that
resembles the 16th century. Also, there isn\'t a monster in your closet.
Greta Thunberg gets it; why doesn\'t John Larkin?
Because he isn\'t a worry-wart like you?
Huh? You\'re telling me it\'s rational to think the future will be
like pre-seventeenth-century as described in (mainly European) books?
John Larkin IS certainly a worry-wart.
On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 22:57:08 +0100, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 12:02:50 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 19:13:16 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 7:37:17 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
Read about life before the 17th century. It was horrible.
Not relevant, because we aren\'t heading into a future that
resembles the 16th century. Also, there isn\'t a monster in your closet.
Greta Thunberg gets it; why doesn\'t John Larkin?
Because he isn\'t a worry-wart like you?
Huh? You\'re telling me it\'s rational to think the future will be
like pre-seventeenth-century as described in (mainly European) books?
John Larkin IS certainly a worry-wart.
No, it\'s you worrying about this fictitious end of the world scenario just because of a bit of gas.
He is sensibly pointing out life would be shit without mod cons. So yes, he is being rational in that assumption. Imagine no transport for trade for example.
On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 22:14:09 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On 06/05/2022 08:37 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jun 2022 11:53:34 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:
On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 7:52:06 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 16:07:54 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 2:11:48 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 14:04:57 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 11:04:42 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
Oil and gas are great. Once you drill a well, the stuff just comes up
and flows into a pipeline. No dust, no miners, no crushers, no
chemicals, ...
Huh? One hundred percent chemical product, guy! Byproducts
galore, so much pollution the weather is taking notice!
Go live in a tent. Forage for food. Burn rushes for light. Wear fur
when it\'s cold. Cook over dung. Walk everywhere. Enjoy.
JL is so shortsighted, he only sees the input end of \'a pipeline\',
and ignores the other one. As long as he\'s on this planet, the
other end IS his concern, just one he\'s neglected for decades.
I\'m in a warm house, in front of a computer drinking hot Peets coffee.
All that thanks to fossil fuel. I don\'t ignore this stuff; I
appreciate it all the time, as I have for decades.
Okay, and I\'m in a warm house, computer, Peets coffee (Big Bang)
but my electricity is hydroelectric, and I\'m not a shortsighted jackass.
The next decades do not have to replicate previous ones. Design
them for improvement, and ditch the insistence on familiarity: there\'s
THREE terms in a PID control, and it works because it acknowledges a
plausible future. You need to dial down the integral term, or it\'ll kill the regulation.
Even assuming that burning oil and gas is the major contributer to
atmospheric CO2, and further assuming that the C02 is causing warming,
and then assuming that warming is bad, the benefits from oil and gas
far outweigh these hypothetical dangers. Especially for the billions
of truly poor people in the world.
Read about life before the 17th century. It was horrible. Even the
elites and royalty had pretty awful lives, and regular people lived on
the edge of death. Half their kids died young. So many women died in
childbirth that their average lifespan was 25. The average man made it
to 32.
Big contributor to survival: ammonia-based fertilizers.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/03/05/sri-lanka-organic-farming-crisis/
That cuts both ways. In the \'60s and \'70s prior to the \'Green
Revolution\' India was facing famine. The new crops, dependent on
chemical fertilizers and irrigation, saved the day. What has happened to
India\'s population since that era? What will be the outcome if the
farmers can\'t afford the chemical fertilizers?
Less Indians, the problem being?
Even in the US manure suddenly has become a hot commodity.
It does generate heat, yes.
You could do what the French do, use human shit to fertilize fields.
If you\'re talking about white tail deer, for example, there is little
argument that the deer will reproduce until they exceed the carrying
capacity of the habitat. Then the population will be reduced one way or
another. With wise game management you strive to keep the herd at
maximum sustainable yield, about half of the maximum BCC.
Why intervene when they\'ll hit the limit themselves?
Are humans exempt? Cornucopians think so and there will always be
another technological advance. What happens when they run out of rabbits
to pull out of the hat?
I\'d love less humans and more space.
On Mon, 06 Jun 2022 03:26:03 +0100, Ed Lee <edward.ming.lee@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 1:48:19 PM UTC-7, rbowman wrote:
On 06/05/2022 05:21 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 02:13:06 +0100, rbowman <bow...@montana.com
wrote:
On 06/04/2022 03:40 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
rbowman wrote:
On 06/04/2022 01:00 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jun 2022 05:06:15 +0100, rbowman <bow...@montana.com
wrote:
On 06/03/2022 12:04 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 22:06:25 -0600, rbowman <bow...@montana.com
wrote:
On 06/02/2022 02:18 PM, ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 21:55:55 UTC-7, Commander Kinsey
wrote:
You said \"minors\" meaning young people, nothing about
mining.
OCD fuckwit. I actually spelt it like that for a laugh,
making
fun
of our fucked up language. Anyway minors are more fun than
miners.
Unusual sense of humour.
How are we supposed to know what you mean?
It could mean either in the context of the conversation.
And most Lithium is \"mined\" using brine extraction, it
does not
involve digging holes.
https://champ4mt.com/the-dangers-of-lithium-mining-and-how-to-do-something-about-it.html
kw
Then there are the minor miners:
https://allthatsinteresting.com/child-miners#27
Oil and gas are great. Once you drill a well, the stuff just
comes up
and flows into a pipeline. No dust, no miners, no crushers, no
chemicals, no trucks, no tailings. Nobody even needs to be
there.
Fracking needs a little more attention, but the action is
still deep
underground.
I always get a kick out of those grasshoppers out in the
middle of
nowhere doing there thing. I get even a bigger kick out of the
ones you
stumble over in the middle of Anaheim. iirc there were a
couple off
State College north of Ball.
I take it you mean a https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcykqOwDvyc
and not
a https://youtu.be/NfJQx8ZEr54?t=50 or a
https://youtu.be/yMFqyabMJTo
Yup. The other part of it is the flares. You\'d be driving through
Wyoming at night in the middle of nowhere and there would be flares
miles off the road. Rather eerie.
I don\'t know if the still burn the gas off oil wells, gorbal
warming
and all, you know.
A lot of stranded gas is now liquefied using thermoacoustic fridges
powered by a much smaller amount of gas. IIRC the yield is something
like 70%, which is a big win.
After a little reading the volume dropped off for a while but has
picked
up again.
https://www.naturalgasintel.com/permian-methane-flaring-venting-said-still-stubbornly-high/
That article claims
EDF said other satellite data indicates Permian operators sent 280
Bcf
of gas worth about $420 million up their flare stacks in 2019,
which was
âmore than enough to supply every home in Texas.â
Gas price was still cheap in 2019, around $3. It\'s $8 today and
unlikely to fall back again. So, less of the stuff should be burning up.
I\'m amazed it was ever a good idea to burn off something you could sell
for a fortune.
On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 21:48:10 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On 06/05/2022 05:21 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 02:13:06 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On 06/04/2022 03:40 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
rbowman wrote:
On 06/04/2022 01:00 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jun 2022 05:06:15 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com
wrote:
On 06/03/2022 12:04 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 22:06:25 -0600, rbowman <bowman@montana.com
wrote:
On 06/02/2022 02:18 PM, ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 21:55:55 UTC-7, Commander Kinsey
wrote:
You said \"minors\" meaning young people, nothing about mining.
OCD fuckwit. I actually spelt it like that for a laugh, making
fun
of our fucked up language. Anyway minors are more fun than
miners.
Unusual sense of humour.
How are we supposed to know what you mean?
It could mean either in the context of the conversation.
And most Lithium is \"mined\" using brine extraction, it does
not
involve digging holes.
https://champ4mt.com/the-dangers-of-lithium-mining-and-how-to-do-something-about-it.html
kw
Then there are the minor miners:
https://allthatsinteresting.com/child-miners#27
Oil and gas are great. Once you drill a well, the stuff just
comes up
and flows into a pipeline. No dust, no miners, no crushers, no
chemicals, no trucks, no tailings. Nobody even needs to be there.
Fracking needs a little more attention, but the action is still
deep
underground.
I always get a kick out of those grasshoppers out in the middle of
nowhere doing there thing. I get even a bigger kick out of the
ones you
stumble over in the middle of Anaheim. iirc there were a couple off
State College north of Ball.
I take it you mean a https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcykqOwDvyc
and not
a https://youtu.be/NfJQx8ZEr54?t=50 or a
https://youtu.be/yMFqyabMJTo
Yup. The other part of it is the flares. You\'d be driving through
Wyoming at night in the middle of nowhere and there would be flares
miles off the road. Rather eerie.
I don\'t know if the still burn the gas off oil wells, gorbal warming
and all, you know.
A lot of stranded gas is now liquefied using thermoacoustic fridges
powered by a much smaller amount of gas. IIRC the yield is something
like 70%, which is a big win.
After a little reading the volume dropped off for a while but has
picked
up again.
https://www.naturalgasintel.com/permian-methane-flaring-venting-said-still-stubbornly-high/
That article claims
EDF said other satellite data indicates Permian operators sent 280 Bcf
of gas worth about $420 million up their flare stacks in 2019, which
was
âmore than enough to supply every home in Texas.â
It wouldn\'t have helped the infrastructure problems but it\'s ironic
that
during the Big Freeze last year the varmints in the Permian were warm
and cozy.
Who, what, or where, is the Permian?
The Permian basin in West Texas and eastern New Mexico.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=30952
As someone pointed out flaring the gas is seen as the lesser of two
evils, since the gas is mostly methane which is seen as a bigger problem
than CO2. There are plenty of leaks so you get the best of both worlds,
methane and CO2.
What\'s that place with a permanent fire they can\'t put out?
On Mon, 06 Jun 2022 18:07:23 +0100, Ed Lee <edward.ming.lee@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 11:09:47 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 7:39:50 AM UTC+2, Ricky wrote:
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 10:26:08 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
Gas price was still cheap in 2019, around $3. It\'s $8 today and
unlikely to fall back again. So, less of the stuff should be burning up.
Of course the price of gas won\'t stay at $8 a gallon. If nothing
else, over the next few years, the amount consumed will drop 10%
because of BEVs and that will continue to make permanent decreases in
the price of oil and gasoline.
There is an enviromental argument for taxing it more heavily, so less
of it gets burnt. As more renewable energy becomes availalble, taxing
fossil carbon will put less of crimp on the economy as a whole, so it
probably will happen, but the fossil carbon extraction industry won\'t
like it.
Not sure if it really make sense to ship LNG to Europe. We (US) got
more than enough and Europe need more of it. For $8 NG, it costs
around $3 to liquidify, $6 to ship and $2 to gasify. It makes zero
economical sense, but only political sense.
Somebody told me they froze it, but that\'s -181 degrees, which is maybe
unfeasible on ships.
On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 06:27:09 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On 06/06/2022 11:07 AM, Ed Lee wrote:
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 11:09:47 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 7:39:50 AM UTC+2, Ricky wrote:
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 10:26:08 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
Gas price was still cheap in 2019, around $3. It\'s $8 today and
unlikely to fall back again. So, less of the stuff should be
burning up.
Of course the price of gas won\'t stay at $8 a gallon. If nothing
else, over the next few years, the amount consumed will drop 10%
because of BEVs and that will continue to make permanent decreases
in the price of oil and gasoline.
There is an enviromental argument for taxing it more heavily, so
less of it gets burnt. As more renewable energy becomes availalble,
taxing fossil carbon will put less of crimp on the economy as a
whole, so it probably will happen, but the fossil carbon extraction
industry won\'t like it.
Not sure if it really make sense to ship LNG to Europe. We (US) got
more than enough and Europe need more of it. For $8 NG, it costs
around $3 to liquidify, $6 to ship and $2 to gasify. It makes zero
economical sense, but only political sense.
It\'s not an overnight solution either. The last I knew Germany was light
on LNG terminals that could easily be wired into the existing pipelines
for distribution. I see it as the US trying to sweet talk them into
something that really isn\'t to their advantage. The Ukraine fiasco is a
good excuse for dropping the pipeline that would be the obvious answer.
Fuck the Ukrainians, buy cheap Russian gas!
On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 14:57:08 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 12:02:50 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 19:13:16 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 7:37:17 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
Read about life before the 17th century. It was horrible.
Not relevant, because we aren\'t heading into a future that
resembles the 16th century. Also, there isn\'t a monster in your closet.
It\'s rational to think that the future will be a lot like the recent
past, with things getting steadily better for humankind. What the
middle ages show us is how incredibly better off we are with oil, gas,
and electricity.